The Truth about how Bishop Emeritus John R. Gaydos would like you to support and fund his betrayal of Catholic faith and morals by admitting transgendered students to Catholic Schools. Brought to you by Christian parents.
Lifesitenews.com interviewed Fr. Frank and then summarized much of what has happened to him and the Diocese in the last few months. It’s worth reading that article. The Diocese, as usual, tries to make no comment and avoid making public what they’ve done. We’ve seen this before and would like to make a few comments. Just as they did with the Transgender Process they like to operate behind the scenes because they do things they shouldn’t be doing. They’re really concerned about Hillary Clinton’s reputation and in order to protect it Fr. Joe Corel threatens to destroy Fr. Frank’s reputation. Watch how they try to hide the way in which they use threats to keep priests in line with their agenda while claiming the priests won’t talk to the Bishop:
The diocese said questions on Father Corel’s threatened canonical rebuke and Father Frank’s status “pertain to internal conversations between Fr. Frank and his Bishop’s delegate.”
“We believe it is not appropriate to make public commenton such communications,” the diocese said in a statement. “Fr. Frank is welcome to bring any matters he wishes to discuss to the Bishop. At the present time, he has not chosen to do so.”
There was no conversation and you can tell that because Fr. Joe didn’t feel that he needed to listen to Fr. Frank’s side of the story but rather left his demands and threats on a voicemail. Furthermore how can they use the word “conversations” but also state that Fr. Frank has not chosen to speak to them? Logically it can’t be both ways. In fact, as any parent who called the Chancery found out, they refuse to dialogue with anyone they disagree with. Furthermore, and this is where Fr. Corel’s hypocrisy comes out, their threat is a “canonical rebuke.” We imagine in our minds a letter coming in the mail solely to Fr. Frank but what they mean is that they will publish something that harms Fr. Frank’s reputation and they will make it vague but serious sounding so that rumors can fly. In this day and age the rumors are often that the priest is a sexual abuser but either way when they ruin a priest’s reputation they are not using INTERNAL conversations but rather publicly defaming the priest and doing so after not speaking with him in person. The same applies to refusing to let him say Mass in some parishes, they should have a solid statement one way or the other about his status in the Diocese when asked (that’s their job) but instead they quietly ruin his reputation with other priests while never speaking to him on the matter. If Bishop Gaydos and Fr. Joe Corel suddenly feel that Fr. Frank is unfit to say Mass who exactly should contact whom?These men are so attached to their vendetta though that they would rather state “No Comment” and look suspicious than state that he is in good standing and thus by default let him say Mass in other parishes. They absolutely do not back down for any reason.
Do you understand what they are doing to good priests? Can you see how they publicize matters they shouldn’t and refuse to publicize matters that they should? Their lack of communication also extends to many lay people, often stonewalling people for years. Bishop Gaydos and Fr. Joe Corel have sown unjustly damaged reputations. They’ll probably reap what they have sown except it will be their own justly damaged reputations.
Please read about journalistic privilege, it should be familiar to Catholics who should be able to trust the seal of the confessional for the same reasons. Being at the center of a lot of attention in a Diocese with thousands of faithful we get a lot of tips and leaks. Now if we thought someone was in imminent physical danger we’d report it. A lot of this garbage happened in the past and publishing all of it would needlessly destroy the reputations of individual priests (whom we may disagree with on many issues but who haven’t publicly stated an opinion on this issue) without helping solve the problem here. Plus, we feel the clergy and Diocesan employees past and present deserve a chance to do the right thing now that the heat is on. Our new leader also deserves a chance to do the right thing. With all of this information we protect our sources who sometimes want us to know something useful but don’t wish it to be published for various reasons. Read the post on Commissar Joe Corel if you still don’t understand the occasional need for anonymity. With that said we are telling everyone that it is time for an audit and that we believe the audit will lead to other things. The lay people don’t have the authority to audit the Diocese but there are people who do and who will. The truly innocent would welcome an audit or at least not fear one. Our society has elected officials and accounting firms whose sole job is to do audits as a matter of course, hence our State Auditor Nicole Galloway. The Diocese has long since lost the benefit of the doubt in avoiding audits. We’ll probably post an article about the difference between a fractional reserve bank, a Ponzi scheme, and a not for profit Diocese and also the difference between what’s legal, illegal, and just shady. One thing is for sure: in a bank run the first few depositors who withdraw get their money but the rest don’t. If that’s the case at perfectly legal and properly run banks (Minus the Federal Reserve backing them up) it’s far more true for Ponzi schemes or legitimate but shady entities with no Federal Reserve backing. Yes, we mean to insinuate that the deposits are gone because that’s what the clergy themselves bluntly state. Prove us wrong and publish it on your webpage. Just because you have the authority to raid accounts and spend all of the money any way you please doesn’t mean you should do it if you got it by promising not to spend it in those ways. If you can’t tell your donors and depositors where the money went then there is a problem.
Last year Lifesitenews.com published an article about Fr. Frank being threatened by Vicar General Joe Corel for publishing information about Bishop Gaydos’ Transgender Process in his parish bulletin. We commented on that article in a blog post.
Comrades, the Diocese is a disfunctional workplace for priests and other staff. It continues to appear that priests who support the Transgender Process or at least remain quiet have remained in each other’s good graces and that of the Chancery. Those who haven’t supported it have not been treated so well. The idea is still floating around that a cleric must write the blog and that he must be found and punished. Good luck finding him. The priests of our Diocese speak a clerical jargon that they learn either from the seminary or from working with each other. They must be the only people who can’t distinguish their own language from that of normal people. Even more glaring is the unctuous language of the Chancery staff and high level clerics in our local Politburo. Anyone who has called the Chancery has probably figured out that they use language to conceal their true opinions or to avoid controversy. That’s called duplicity. One could even say they’re robotic whenever there is a disagreement. If you listen to the audio of the priests’ meeting you’ll hear a short glitch in the matrix any time someone contradicts them or asks a question and then they quickly revert to the pre-programmed message. We want to be clear once more that this blog is entirely run by lay people and it WILL NOT GO AWAY no matter how many priests are threatened or ostracized. We’re sorry that the clergy are mean and abusive to each other over this issue but we don’t believe they will get away with that behavior for much longer. We would like you to note that Fr. Frank told the truth to his parishioners about the Process and then Fr. Joe Corel ratcheted up the situation with his threats. Commissar Corel actually lied about Fr. Frank by saying that his bulletin lied. In some cases for years priests, many parents and this blog have pointed out problems and abuses to the Chancery and Bishop Gaydos only to be ignored or threatened. They refuse to address the issue and instead they get personal. Fr. Joe Corel is the former vocations director and that fact should shed some light on why we are so short on vocations. Very few men are interested in working in this environment regardless of their views. So in a spirit opposite of his covert threats, and just so you know that Lifesitenews.com and then the blog published the truth about Fr. Joe Corel, we are publishing the audio of Vicar General Joe Corel threatening Fr. Frank. Ladies and Gentlemen, your former vocations director and now Vicar General:
Fr. Corel, do you have anything else you’d like to add? We’re all ears.
Today’s post is brought to you by the letter A, for Audit. If a certain Diocese only 30 days away from a management shakeup were a stock it would be trading down right now. The CEO, CFO, and other senior management at any large firm telegraph their retirement plans in advance, like Sergio Marchionne of FiatChrysler who has let the shareholders know that he plans to retire in 2019. Everyone knows far in advance so that everyone knows nothing unusual is afoot. The Catholic Church does the same thing by requiring that Bishops turn in their resignation at age 75. When a CEO suddenly resigns just months before such a date for “Personal Reasons” (And they don’t have stage 4 cancer) everyone knows that something is afoot and that it isn’t good. Someone with the power of a CEO doesn’t retire a few months from the goal because of a condition they’ve had for 20 years or what they themselves call a minor procedure, especially if said leader was accustomed to spending an inordinate amount of time traveling to nice relaxing places anyway. Instead they quietly delegate their work while running out the clock. When the departure is abrupt the stock trades down because there is usually either a failure to execute the goals of the company or there is fraud. And that’s a good analogy for a certain not-for-profit religion based entity that shall remain nameless.
We’re using a business analogy because we’re talking about how human nature interacts with power, authority, and publicity. The abruptly departed leader is usually quickly replaced. After that two things could happen: either the firm admits the fraud and fills the position with someone who is informed of it and has the authority to clean up the mess or everyone acts innocent and the position is filled with an expendable fall guy. The fall guy doesn’t have to be an idiot either, it’s just as well if one can sink a talented colleague or a competitor. If you’re the new boss and you’re in on the ruse then you’ll need all the luck you can get if things were so bad that the previous boss relinquished power or was forced out in a humiliating way. If you’re the fall guy then you’ve got to move fast but you’ve got some options and the best option is an audit. The old advice to not change anything for one year will sink you in these situations because if fraud is uncovered a year into your term and you did not carefully document your effort to find it then you’re complicit and you’re sunk.
If we were in charge of a large not-for-profit corporation we’d start by interviewing every staff member (lay and clerical) in the last 30 years who held a high position and either resigned abruptly or left for new employment. Everyone knows the score when someone resigns deeply disgruntled but never quite has a specific reason for the deep resentment, it’s because they can’t say it without accusing themselves. The closer to the money the closer to the truth because it takes money to accomplish most fraud. We’d be asking some tough questions like these: if people believed that the Corporation had kept two sets of books for many years (and there can’t be any good excuse for that) was it really only two sets? If donors felt money was misdirected to become hush money did they pay by check or cash? If two “employees” had a suitcase full of cash and we wanted to know if it came from higher up the chain or from the weekly plate we’d wonder: was it all Benjamins or was it 5’s and 10’s? If smaller branch offices deposited millions of dollars with the corporate office in the main city, as if it were a bank, shouldn’t they be alarmed if most of the money is gone? If the funding drive brochures and one set of books can’t account for the disappearance of millions of dollars then where did the money go? What will happen to all the people who handled money at the corporate office, and didn’t report fraud, if the depositors get wise to the scheme? If you didn’t do it but you knew it happened and you didn’t report it who is really going to believe that you are innocent? How does that affect your current and future employment?
When an audit comes anyone who is or was in the corporate office has to decide if they are willing to take a fall for the departing CEO, especially if he no longer has the goods to dish out.